Improving democracy in Calgary

Time to put an end to private uses of political donations

Most people must work a lifetime to garner a decent pension. But in Calgary, there is another alternative: run for local political office, do a bang-up job of fundraising, and if a healthy campaign surplus results, just keep the money after you retire from politics.

This ability to keep political surpluses in Calgary's elections is one problem and should be fixed. But that election financing glitch should not lead to an over-reaction about money and politics, either.

On the surplus issues, as reporter Colette Derworiz reports in today's Herald, former alderman Sue Higgins decided to keep the surplus from past campaigns (estimated at between $18,000 to $20,000) as personal income. Also, as disclosed by Mayor Dave Bronconnier on the city hall website, his campaign produced a surplus of $316,000 after the 2007 campaign. The mayor says he will donate such monies to charity when he leaves politics.

There is nothing illegal about Higgins' decision to keep her campaign surplus. Moreover, the mayor's promise about his surplus is a sensible recognition of the taint that such money can carry. Also, it might be argued that if former donors have no problem with how their money is used after-the-fact, the general public should not be concerned.

That would be the wrong conclusion to draw from the action of Higgins or the promise from Bronconnier. Given that a campaign surplus can be substantial, campaign donations could, in the hands of less scrupulous politicians, actually be legal bribes, given in advance to buy influence while an alderman or mayor serves at city hall and then intended for personal use after one's retirement. For that reason alone, such surpluses should be required to be either refunded to donors or given over to charity, and such a change should be required by provincial statute. Bronconnier's good example should be a requirement for all.

Beyond that reform, it would be a mistake to assume money in politics is inherently corrupting of the process, tainted, or that less of it should be spent.

On the general issue of money in politics, that doesn't mean money inevitably buys votes or victories. In 2007, Alnoor Kassam spent more than $1.5 million in his attempt to unseat Bronconnier as mayor. (Only $5,630 of that amount was donated; the rest was Kassam's.) If the theory is that money buys elections, Kassam's very expensive run disproves it. Kassam spent more than twice what the incumbent spent, but Kassam received barely more than one-quarter of Bronconnier's eventual vote total.

As for calls for spending limits or caps on donations, such calls are ill-advised -- $2.2 million was raised to fight the last civic election, this to reach more than 750,000 Calgarians of voting age who were Canadian citizens, i.e., eligible to vote. That equates to $2.93 per eligible Calgarian.

Caps are a mistake because the reality of modern elections in large cities means it is impossible for candidates to talk to every voting-age constituent.

All the door-knocking in the course of several months or any number of flyers posted on telephone poles could never replace the necessity of candidates to spread their ideas, policies, platforms, and messages through television, radio, newspapers, lawn signs, and increasingly, the Internet.

That is not inexpensive and rather than restrict donations or impose spending caps, the provincial government should impose the transparency requirements already mandated in Calgary, and do so province-wide -- and ban using donated funds for personal purposes.

It is transparency in the political process, the revealing of who donates what, that wards off corruption. The only thing limits on donations or spending do is to give an advantage to the already well-known candidates -- the incumbents in power.

While money is necessary to a better airing of candidate positions, that reality does not mean an absence of sensible rules is in the public interest. Here, two reforms are necessary: transparency and an end to possible retirement slush funds.

To paraphrase Chairman Mao, let a thousand candidates, ideas, and interests bloom. But transparency should be de rigeur.

And as for the possibility of de facto retirement funds at the local level, that should be permanently ended by provincial law.

Latest updates

Cariwest Think of Cariwest as a very concentrated Heritage Days, one that focuses exclusively on Caribbean culture. Churchill Square will turn into a Caribbean Village for the run of the festival, which promises music, art, dance and food. The Cariwest parade starts at noon on Saturday, beginning at the Legislature building, then heading down 109th Street to Churchill Square. A smaller children’s parade happens at the square on Sunday at 1 p.m.